Republican Hero Endorses Hillary?

http://gma.yahoo.com/did-petraeus-just-endorse-hillary-clinton-203957582--abc-news-topstories.html

Republicans must be choking on their white-bread-Miracle-Whip sandwiches over this. One of their greatest heros saying that Hillary would make a tremendous president? OMG Not only that he commends her for her actions related to Benghazi and that must really drive the Republicans nuts.

Personally I believe that Hillary would be another bad choice for President but I'm LMAO over this news story because Republicans are going to be choking on their own vomit in attacking Petraeus over this one.

 

I don't necessarily believe that Petraeus is viewed as the greatest thing ever by the right, but if a man who cheats on his wife endorses you after you let your husband dog you around for decades, it is not something I would encourage you to try to use to your advantage.

 

I imagine the feeling is equivilent to when a preacher's son tells his father he's gay.

 

LOL. Would that be the General Be-TRAY-Us that the far leftist hated and smeared during the Bush administration? So, now they care what he says???? Too funny.

BTW, he probably likes her because she wrote him a personal letter during his public smearing when his AFFAIR went public and told him she had some experience with that sort of thing and made him feel all better. She does that, you know......always takes the men's side as she did every time her sexual predator husband involved himself with other women; usually MUCH younger than her.

Talk about "war on women!" We now know from her best friend's recent revelations....that Hillary called Monica a "narcissistic loony toon." She made excuses for Bill, the sexual predator with a history.....but she always trashed the women. I'm sure they paid off Monica's family......but I'll tell you what I do if the pervert took advantage of my 19-year old college student that I sent off to intern at the White House; I would have taken him to court and sued his ass. Let's see now.....he was a 53-year old man....married man....and president of the U.S.; the most powerful job in the world....and she was a young, impressionable 19 year old......and Hillary attacked her???? Any CEO would have been out-the door; THAT very day it became known!!

Someone should ask Hillary: "What would you have done had that young intern been Chelsea with any other president???"

BTW, I don't attack Patreus on this one. I attack Hillary, as she was an enabler for a sexual predator of young women.
Geez. Women like Hillary Clinton make me sick!

 

It was surprising to see Patreaus endorsing Hillary so soon. I guess maybe he is looking for a job within her Administration. What I do not understand is the commending her for her actions in Benghazi. A US Ambassador was killed for the first time in nearly 30 years under her watch. If she cannot protect one Ambassador, how is she to protect an entire nation? Why didn't she go on the Sunday morning news shows after the attack. She was in Washington at that time. That was her 3am phone call and she decided not to answer.

 

Oh this will throw many "real americans" in to a tissy. I am sure more than a few here will call for his stars, or call him a facist, commy, oh and they will need to see his birth certificate

 

The wacko birds will now turn on their hero faster than a new york minute (not spent on the george washington bridge.)

Petraeus's covert CIA operations in Benghazi assures his being intimately involved with all the facts, and if there is one thing that gets the wacko birds in a tizzy it's facts.

 

Benghazi was as much her fault as 9/11 was Bush's fault. Republicans need to shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about Benghazi, no one cares.

 

I can totally understand why Petraeus believes that Hillary's response to Benghazi was appropriate and admirable. Remember that Petraeus was the head of the CIA and Benghazi was really a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic outpost. The consulate there did not perform any "consulate" duties at all. The State Department was covering the CIA's ass in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attacks so of course the head of the CIA would appreciate that fact. Remember it was the CIA that created the "talking points" after the attack presumably to "protect national security" which is the excuse generally used when our government lies to us.

Of course the whole issue of "Benghazi" is nothing more than a political ploy by Republicans based upon partisan BS. There has really never been in substance to their allegations of failures or misconduct but that is a different story all together. No one would know this better than Petraeus that was actually an insider on the whole affair.

 

I find it interesting that "conservatives" left with no political facts to support a position often to resort to character assassination.

Hillary Clinton should be opposed politically based upon her political ideology and agenda and not because of the fact that a young woman decided all on her own to have a sex relationship with her husband.

 

Is it you believe our government had no fault in 9-11 under Bush's administration, Hillary is not at all responsible for Benghazi, or both?

Why?

Yeah, we know. Four dead Americans. Why should anyone care? Four dead Americans partly as the result of an interventionist foreign policy and failing on security. Why should anyone care?

 

Inconsistency exposes the depraved hyper-partisanship, so they need to insist that all Secretaries of State are intimately involved with all security details far down the chain of command to the operational level at all US facilities around the globe.

Then, they need to summons Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to assign culpability regarding the 35 folks killed in terrorist attacks when they were supposed to be devising those security measures, not to mention George Schultz whose similar dereliction resulted in the 241 that Reagan deployed being slaughtered in Beirut - or they may wish to blame Casper Weinberger in that case.

That wouldn't make the rabid wacko birds right, of course, but it would at least make them equal opportunity slime balls.


.

 

Ahhhh, you knew this was coming.....
Why couldn't these guys stick to blowing strangers in Airport Men's rooms like good Republicans.........

 

I think that you have inadvertently reversed their priorities.

 

1. The security of consulates is provided for by the host country. Only Embassies are protected by the Embassy nation.

2. There was no failure of the Libyan security forces in responding to the attack at the Benghazi consulate. They responded quickly and everyone that could be located was quickly evacutated to the Libyan security compound. Ambassador Stevens was not located because he was in a secret safe room and died of smoke inhallation (not terrorst bullets) after the Libyan security forces had successfullly evacuated the compound.

3. There was no need for US forces to deploy from Tripoli as those rescued from the consulate were safe in the Libyan security compound and were safely evacutated the next morning. If anything the deployment from Tripoli can be condemned because it was unnecessary and resulted in the deaths of two US soldiers. The Libyan security compound was never threatened with being breached by terrorists.

4. The "talking points" after the fact were created by the CIA based upon a "national security" interest of a dubious nature but that is often the case with CIA operations. I don't see Republicans even implying that the CIA shouldn't lie or withhold evidence from the American People.

5. The fact that the Embassy had addressed security issues related to Benghazi is moot as Ambassador Stevens believed they were "good enough" when he decided to go there. We need to remember that every Middle East Embassy was requesting "more security" but there wasn't the funding for it and, based upon the actual events that day, the Libyan security forces were more than adequate to rescue all of those at the compound when it was attacked. If Ambassador Stevens wouldn't have been in a secret safe room he would have been rescued with everyone else. Stevens died because of his decision to be in the safe room that didn't protect those inside from outside smoke and that the Libyan security forces were unaware of. Stevens did not die as a direct result from the "terrorist" attack and he could have been saved by the Libyan security forces that came, safely evacuated everyone they could locate, and left before he died.

Of course the House Republicans conducting the hearings don't give a tinkders damn about the actual facts. They have also failed to establish any connection with President Obama and the White House (their real goal) that wasn't involved in any of this which was a matter between the heads of State Dept (Clinton) and the CIA (Petraeus).

 

While I did cite a case of character assassination in post the issue of priorities can be addressed.

Petraeus is cited as saying that Hillary would make a tremendous president apparently based, at least partially, upon her handling of the Benghazi attacks.

The problem is that (House) Republicans have made fools out of themselves related to Benghazi (see my prior post). Petraeus is actually the expert on Benghazi because it was really a CIA operation and not a State Department diplomatic outpost. Calling it a "consulate" was just a cover for a covert CIA operation under Petraeus and not under Hillary Clinton. Petraeus, not Clinton, was in charge at Benghazi because it was a CIA operation.

Republicans were "slinging mud" but it didn't stick because they were slinging it in the wrong direction.

 

That is, essentially, the reality of the matter. Granting even a role for the diplomatic mission beyond fronting for CIA covert operations, the two were obviously integrated and coordinated. Pretending that the CIA chief, with his extensive oversight of US military installations overseas, would expect the Secretary of State to devise security operation details in Benghazi is patently ludicrous. Not only Petraeus, but neither Powell nor Rice who are intimately aware of the job description, have contributed a smidgeon to the GOP's fizzled slimefest.

Maybe the ineffectual Darrell Issa should peddle a line of foolproof embassy alarms. His own rap sheet of arrests and indictments stands in stark contrast to his inability to contrive a single one amongst his various foundering partisan vendettas as rank member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

So successful women make you sick but you admire thong-flashing airheads?
Why am I not surprised?

 

Seriously the Republicans are so cheap they will take a freebie in a bathroom when everybody knows that real men stage car crashes to drown their victims in a marsh.

 

Maybe the good General thinks Hillary has bigger balls than Obama.

 

Americans mourn the loss of those four Americans. They also hate the fact that it's been politicized like it has. If by saying "no one cares" the previous poster was saying that Benghazi will not hurt Clinton. They were right. Nobody doesn't care that those Americans died, we just don't buy this "It was Hillary and Obama's fault" garbage. Have a good day.

 

Are you his attorney or spokesperson?

 

Who's? I do home remodeling, HVAC, and fence work. I am not an attorney.

 

Good, sir, that means you work for a living.

 

She would make a tremendous president to anyone valuing American militarism on Israel's behalf (and probably Africa since that's where Bill f-ed up. I think that's where Petreus is coming from. Problem is, all those people valuing American militarism would be putting on the puka beads and tie-dyed shirts if Hillary became Commander in Chief. That's just the way we roll in America.